[AlotOfReading]

Current US border policy is in no way designed to minimize hyperthermia related suffering. For instance, there are nonprofits that install water stations in the desert to minimize migrant deaths. CBP agents regularly vandalize these to prevent their use [0]. They also keep captured migrants in crowded outdoor cages and in facilities without meaningful AC during the hottest months.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/us-border-pa...

[busterarm]

I never suggested otherwise. Ideally zero people would be crossing this border illegally and then there would be no deaths, right?

We should do everything possible to discourage this crossing. Adequate surveillance is a large part of that.

If you are legitimately seeking asylum you can just walk up to any border crossing station and not risk your life.

Edit: As far as the condition that we keep captured criminals in, I would wager a good bet that they're comparably better than the appallingly horrific conditions of South American jails.

[sottol]

Imo large parts of the southwest and CA benefit immensely from immigrant labor. Both in time-savings and $ (outsourcing upkeep, housework, child-care) which allow their population to consume more and pursue other opportunities.

Also, would people pay 50% more, double or triple for fruit picked by Americans, meat packed by , those huge gardens and front yards maintained by, houses built by Americans. I think Florida and Texas after storms start to hint at what night be to come.

[tomschlick]

> Imo large parts of the southwest and CA benefit immensely from immigrant labor.

I don't see anyone arguing against immigration here. We are arguing against illegal immigration / obvious abuse of the asylum system.

If we can close the obvious holes in our border that are letting 200k people through a month, I'm very much in favor of granting more work visas to immigrants and starting the naturalization process.

[sottol]

My point is that many households have adapted to the cheap labor - larger houses, larger gardens and so on based, larger than the owner can self-suppprt, based on the cost of labor.

Owners would have to do more themselves (thus spend time) or more money (that they can't spend consuming other things) if labor costs increased.

I'm also not arguing for limitless immigration. What I'm trying to say is that there will probably not be zero illegal immigration despite what politicians promise, at this point it's baked into the (cost-)structure of society I suppose and not painlessly undone.

[busterarm]

If you want the law to reflect the economic reality, by all means engage with your local politicians.

I know people with a tree farm business in Texas who only hire illegals because every single citizen they've tried to hire cut their pinky off the second week on the job and filed for disability.

I don't disagree with your argument one bit but illegal is illegal. If somebody is going to break our laws to come here what expectation should I have that they're going to respect our laws once they're here? Criminals should be treated like criminals in a functioning society.

If the economic benefits are worth it to you, change the law. Don't subvert its enforcement. You can't stand up shouting about Trump and a Jan 6th insurrection and also turn a blind eye to illegal immigration in the same breath.

[sottol]

Oh yeah, point is "legal ain't cheap". Or maybe even moreso that it might ultimately hurt per-capita output and GDP more than just the apparent cost of immigrant labor value provided.

[AlotOfReading]

Look, I don't want to get into a discussion of whether the current laws are proper. HN isn't the place for that. I'm just saying that pretending border surveillance is a way to keep immigrants safe from the desert is pure moral fiction.

[busterarm]

I never suggested that it would keep them safe.

I said that you would know that there are people there and they might be or about to be in serious danger. What you do with that information afterwards is an entirely separate conversation.

If it is in your power to have this information and you neglect to, that is highly immoral. If we're going to have this border policy then it is our responsibility to know the effects of that policy. Surveillance of this crossing where hundreds of people die every year is a moral imperative.

People are posting in this thread suggesting that having autonomous surveillance here is akin to pointing weapons at people. The suggestion is hyperbole and ridiculous.

What's really disheartening here is that the people that don't like our border policy would rather we turn a blind eye here guaranteeing that these deaths continue and in greater numbers.